First International Conference on Science, Engineering & Environment,

Tsu City, Mie, Japan, Nov.19-21, 2015, ISBN: 978-4-9905958-5-2 C3051

INDICATORS TO MEASURE DESIGN QUALITY OF BUILDINGS

Azeanita Suratkon1 and Safuan Jusoh2

1
Jamilus Research Centre, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Design quality is an important component in measuring satisfaction towards total product quality (TPQ) of
buildings, the product of construction projects. Design Quality Indicator (DQI), developed by the Construction
Industry Council (CIC) in the UK looking at three quality fields, i.e. functionality, build quality, and impact of
building in measuring the quality of design embodied in the buildings through feedback and perceptions of all
stakeholders involved in the production and use of buildings. Design quality is always a major concern in the
Malaysian construction industry. With inspiration from this DQI, this study was carried out to identify indicators
for measuring the satisfaction towards design quality of buildings and to evaluate the suitability of the indicators
for application in the context of Malaysian construction industry. Through literature survey, 34 indicators of
design quality were identified and grouped into the three design quality fields. A questionnaire survey was
carried out among Malaysian construction professionals (architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, contractors
and developers) to assess the identified design quality indicators in terms of their significance or relevance in the
context of construction industry in Malaysia. The survey reveals that access, natural lighting, structure elements,
landscape and location are among the design quality indicators that were perceived as the most important to be
looked at. In overall, all the indicators are relevance for adoption in the Malaysian construction industry to
measure the satisfaction towards design quality of buildings.

Keywords: Design quality indicators, Satisfaction measurement, Stakeholders’ perception, Malaysian

construction industry,

INTRODUCTION effects or results received with the expected [5].

Quality is one of the triple constraints or forces
for every construction project besides the other two
parameters i.e. time and cost. Adopting the
definitions by Webster, Oxford and Cambridge
dictionaries, quality can be defined as any character
or characteristics that determine whether an object
good or bad after measuring the character or
characteristics against a standard. The standard
refers to specification of the object to be designed
[1]. Buildings are design object, the product of the
design. The actual result related to the design quality
of the building will be only known after several
years of building is occupied [2]. During the
occupancy stage, measurement and feedback such
post-occupancy evaluation (POE) can be carried out
to acquire the relevant data to determine the level of
design quality in satisfying the needs and
requirements of building client/customer/occupants.
This approach also can be categorized under
satisfaction measurement (SM) which is used to
measure the level of project performance [3].
Satisfaction is a measure of the difference between
actual and expected performance of a product or
service to meet the needs and requirements of users
and current perspective [4]. Satisfaction is a sense of
excitement or disappointment after comparing the
Design quality will determine the suitability of
buildings and the quality of compliance that shows
how the building in accordance with the
specifications required by the design [6]. The quality
of the design can produce more efficient
intermediation services and will improve the work
environment for all those who use it [7].
Over the past decades, measuring and valuing the
quality of design draws the attention clients,
designers, and other construction practitioners as
well as many researchers [8] and [9]. Design quality
is always a major concern in the Malaysian
construction industry. Construction Industry
Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia, a
government agency and an important player in
Malaysian construction industry emphasizes the
issues of quality in Construction Industry Master
Plan (CIMP) 2006-2015 under Strategic Thrust 3;
strive for the highest standard of quality,
occupational safety and health, and environmental
practices [10] Despite this emphasize from the CIDB,
the Malaysian construction industry still suffers with
many quality-related problems [11], such as quality
below expectation [12], low quality finishes on
buildings [13], and there is no benchmark to
measure the standard of quality of houses
constructed by developers [14]. It is apparent that

365
 SEE-Mie, Japan, Nov. 19-21, 2015
appropriate mechanism should take place in
Malaysian construction industry to resolve quality-
related issues especially on design quality.
Design Quality Indicator (DQI), developed by
the Construction Industry Council (CIC) in the UK
has successfully used in the UK’s construction
industry since it was launched in 2002. Design
quality is a combination of functionality (how useful
the facility is in achieving its purpose); impact (how
well the facility creates a sense of place); and build
quality (performance of the completed facility) [15].
The indicators and evaluation approach can be
adopted in Malaysian construction industry with
some modification. Therefore, with inspiration from
this DQI, the objectives of this paper are to identify
indicators to measure satisfaction towards design
quality of buildings and to assess the suitability of
the indicators in the context of the construction
industry in Malaysia.
INDICATORS OF DESIGN QUALITY
Design Quality Indicators (DQI) of UK
The DQI was developed to measure the quality
of design embodied in the product, the buildings
themselves through feedback and perceptions of
individuals who have interest or connection with the
product [16]. It is applicable for new or refurbished
buildings. It is in the form of a questionnaire which
contains a set of statements that collect the views or
perceptions of all stakeholders by looking at three
quality indicators, i.e. Functionality, build quality,
and impact of buildings [17].
The functionality of buildings is emphasized on
the arrangement, quality and inter-relationship of
spaces, and how the building is designed to be useful.
It looks into three following aspects:
a. Use - how well the building caters for the
functions it may accommodate originally and
in the future.
b. Size - the size and interrelationship of the
building's, rooms or component spaces.
c. Access - how easy it is for all people to get to,
and around the building.
The built quality of buildings is evaluated on how
well the building is constructed: its structure, fabric,
finishes and fittings, its engineering systems, and the
coordination of all these and how well they perform.
The evaluation is on the following aspects:
a. Performance - the building's mechanical,
environmental and safety systems.
b. Engineering - the quality of the building's
components.
c. Construction - how well the building is put
together.
The impact of buildings highlights building's ability
to delight, to intrigue, to create a sense of place, and
uplift the local community and environment, and
366
also the design's contribution to the arts and science
of building and architecture. The evaluation includes
the following items:
a. Character and innovation - what people think
of the overall building?
b. Form and materials - the building's physical
composition, scale and configuration within
its boundaries.
c. Internal environment - the quality inside the
building's envelope.
d. Urban and social integration - the relationship,
of the building with its surroundings.
Indicators of Design Quality from Previous
Studies
Thirty-four (34) indicators that relevant for
measuring design quality from previous studies
(from year 1996 to 2014) were identified and
tabulated in Table 1. The thirty-four indicators are
regrouped into the three quality fields as listed and
explained in Table 2, 3 and 4.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Development and Sampling Frame
Quantitative approach using questionnaire surveys
has been used to collect data. The purpose of the
questionnaire survey was intended for feedback on
the suitability or significance of the design quality
indicators which are grouped under three categories
i.e. functionality, build quality and impact in the
context of Malaysian construction industry. A pilot
test was conducted before distributing the
questionnaire to respondents for actual survey.
Questionnaires were distributed to 70 established
construction companies in Malaysia to elicit
feedback from 300 samples. This phase involves
postal surveys via ordinary mail.
Data Analysis
A five-point Likert-scale with options ranging from
“1 = Not Significant” to “5 = Very Significant” has
been adopted to elicit feedback on the indicators. In
order to determine the level of significance of the
indicators, average index (AI) analysis was carried
out. The interpretation of the AI value (adopted and
modified based on [18] is shown in Table 5.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Background of Respondents
Eighty-eight (88) respondents completed and
returned the questionnaires; make up the valid
response rate at 29%. This is close to the 25-30%
normal response rate for construction research that
 SEE-Mie, Japan, Nov. 19-21, 2015

was suggested by [19]. Most of the respondents are
engineers (33%), contractors (23%) and developer
(17%). The remaining respondents are quantity
surveyors (11%), architect (3%) and other
construction project personnel such as project
manager and landscape architect (13%). The
majority (64%) of the respondents have bachelor
degree. 23% of respondents have diploma degree.
Respondents with higher degree level (master and
PhD) accounted for 11%, and the remaining 2 %
have qualification below diploma level. For their
working experience, most of the respondents (52%)
have worked in the construction industry less than 6
years.

Table 1 Indicators for measuring design quality of buildings

[20]

[21]

[22]

[16]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]
[7]
Items

Layout √ √ √
Design √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Access √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Space √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Lighting √ √ √ √ √
Open space √
Service √
Natural Lighting √
Natural ventilation √
Use √ √ √ √ √
Engineering system √ √ √ √ √ √
Landscape √ √ √
Security system √ √
Energy √
Green energy and
sustainability √
Finishes √ √ √ √ √
Structure element √ √
Road width √
Infrastructure √
Building stability √
Pedestrian walkway √
Building maintenance √ √ √ √
Colour √ √ √ √
Building stability √
Pedestrian walkway √
Building maintenance √ √ √
Colour √ √ √ √
Form and materials √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Comfort √ √ √
Internal environment √ √ √ √ √ √ √
External environment √
Character and innovation √ √ √ √
Urban and social integration √ √ √ √
Location √ √
Visual Effect √ √
Security √ √
Natural disaster √
Noise √
Table 2 Functionality aspect and quality indicators

367
 SEE-Mie, Japan, Nov. 19-21, 2015

Indicators Descriptions construction industry.

Layout The building layout is easily
understood by its users to find their Table 4 Impact aspect and quality indicators
way round the building
Design The design of building is attractive Indicators Descriptions
Access The building provides good and safe Building colour is suitable for
Colour
access for everyone (users and the building
visitors including those with The building has the shape and
Form &
disabilities) materials in accordance with the
Material
Space The spaces in building are the right functions
size for their functions Buildings provide comfort to
Comfort
Lighting the user
The lighting is efficient and allows
Atmosphere in building, relation
for different user requirements Internal between light and space and
Service The building provides essential environment working climate at workplaces
services to the user provide comfort
Natural Position of windows and doors are External External surrounding is good
lighting suitable for natural lighting environment quality for users
Natural Position of windows and doors are The impact of buildings on the
ventilation suitable for natural ventilation Character &
character, thinking and human
innovation
appearance
Table 3 Build quality aspect and quality indicators Interaction with private and
Urban &
public areas and the impact of
Indicators Descriptions integration
buildings on the city and
The building easily social
Use community
accommodates the users' needs Positioning of the building in
Mechanical and electrical Location
Engineering good location
systems in building functioning The scene of the building is
system Visual effect
properly attractive
Landscape Building landscape is attractive The building provides a sense of
Security
Security Security system of the building security
system is function properly Location of buildings survived
Natural
The building is efficient in its from natural disaster like floods
Energy disaster
use of energy or others
Green energy Building using green energy Surrounding noise of the
& sources and sustainability Noise building is not intrusive and
sustainability system affect human health
Finishes of the building is
Finishing
attractive Table 5 Average index (AI) range value and
Structure The building's structure is interpretation
element efficient AI range value Interpretation
The road width of the building 4.50 < AI < 5.00 Very Significant
Road width
is suitable 3.50 < AI < 4.50 Significant
Building infrastructure is
Infrastructure 2.50 < AI < 3.50 Moderately Significant
sufficient
Stability Building is stable from natural 1.50 < AI < 2.50 Less Significant
elements e.g. wind, rain and 1.00 < AI < 1.50 Not Significant
earthquake
Pedestrian Building walkway is suitable Perception on Indicators of Design Quality
walkway and pedestrian- friendly
Building Building is maintained properly As shown in Fig. 1, 2 and 3, the AI value of all
maintenance the indicators under functionality, build quality and
impact aspects are within the range of 3.50 < AI <
The involvements of these respondents were 4.50, suggesting that all the indicators are significant
reasonably balanced by those who have worked for to be considered in evaluating the design quality of
more than 6 years up to 20 years or more (48%). buildings in Malaysia. Under functionality aspect,
This provides a substantially reliable data for this natural lighting and access scored the highest AI
study as their feedbacks represent the perspective of values. This finding indicates that buildings in
the key construction players in Malaysian Malaysia should be designed to efficiently utilise the

368
 SEE-Mie, Japan, Nov. 19-21, 2015

natural lighting to light up the indoor considering attractive but at the same time it can strengthen the
Malaysia is a tropical country with abundance of identity and character of the building.
natural-light. A building with good access to its

3.96
users especially users with disabilities is perceived
as a significant indicator to measure design quality.

3.91

3.91

3.91
3.9
In Malaysia, there is a growing awareness, efforts

3.88

3.86
and commitment of key building stakeholders to

3.85
3.83
improve the accessibility of buildings especially for

3.82

3.82
3.81
users with disabilities.
3.96
3.92
3.85 3.87 3.85
3.81 3.82 3.82
3.79

Internal environment
External environment

Visual effect

Natural disaster
Form & Material

Urban & integration social

Security
Colour

Location
Comfort

Noise
Character & innovation
Fig. 1 Average index of indicators - functionality
Fig. 3 Average index of indicators – impact
3.99

4.01

3.95
3.92

Among the impact indicators, location scored the

3.91

3.89
3.9

highest AI value. Positioning of building in

3.83

appropriate location or local environment will help

3.82

3.81
3.81
3.79

the building to create a sense of place. The other

three impact indicators i.e. external environment,
3.71

urban and social integration and noise scored same

3.91 AI value.

CONCLUSION

Indicators to measure design quality that has

Finishing

Infrastructure
Security system
Use

Energy

Structure element
Engineering system

Green energy & sustainability

Landscape

Stability

Maintenance
Pedestrian
Road width

been adopted in the DQI of the UK can be adopted

Fig. 2 Average index of indicators - build quality
Structure element of buildings such as beams,
columns and floors which are efficient is considered
as significant build quality indicators with the
highest AI value (4.01). The efficiency of the
structure elements can accommodate challenging
and creative architectural designs and will lead to
buildings that are of high build quality. Landscape
scored the second highest AI value. Building
landscape should be designed not only to be
in Malaysian construction industry with some
modification. This study was carried out to identify
indicators to measure satisfaction towards design
quality of buildings and to assess the suitability of
the indicators in the context of the construction
industry in Malaysia. The survey revealed that all
the indicators are significant in measuring the design
quality of buildings in the context of construction
industry in Malaysia. The identified design quality
indicators are likely to be useful to all building
stakeholders especially owner, user, contractor and
designer who have direct participation in producing
or utilising the building. The work is also expected
to support the existing green building assessment
system particularly on eliciting stakeholders’
perception on the actual design quality of buildings.
REFERENCES
[1] Aas, EJ., “Design quality and design efficiency:
definitions, metrics and relevant design experiences”,

369
 SEE-Mie, Japan, Nov. 19-21, 2015
in 1st International Symposium on Quality of
Electronic Design (ISQED), 2000, pp. 389-394.
[2] Giddings, B, Sharma, M, Jones, P and Jensen, P, “An
evaluation tool for design quality: PFI sheltered
housing”, Building Research & Information, 2013,
Vol. 41: 6, pp. 690–705.
[3] Masrom, MA, Skitmore, M and Bridge, A, “The
identification of Malaysian contractor satisfaction
dimensions: a strategy for continuous improvement”,
in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Construction Eng. and Proj.
Mgmt., 2011, accessed
through http://eprints.quit.edu.au/.
[4] Ibem, EO, Opoko, AP, Adeboye, AB, & Amole, D,
"Performance evaluation of residential buildings in
public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria: Users’
satisfaction perspective", Frontiers of Architectural
Research, 2013, 2(2), pp. 178–190.
[5] Xiaozhong, Y and Haishuang, L,"The fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation of stakeholder’s
satisfaction in construction project", in Proc. Int.
Conf. on Computers and Industrial Eng., Jul. 2009,
pp. 1137–1142.
[6] Wu, L, "Managing design quality and conformance
quality: models and insights", Total Quality
Management, 2010, Vol. 21:4, pp. 383–389.
[7] Farooqui, RU, & Ahmed, SM, "Designing for
quality : an empirical study of design quality
indicator (DQI) tool", Building Research &
Information, 2009, pp. 1–7.
[8] Gann, D and Whyte, J, “Design quality, its
measurement and management in the built
environment”, Building Research & Information,
2003, pp. 314-317.
[9] Deewuf, G, and Van Meel, J, “Sense and nonsense of
measuring design quality”, Building Research &
Information, 2004, pp. 247–250.
[10] CIDB, “Malaysian Construction Industry Master Plan
2006 – 2015”. Kuala Lumpur, CIDB.
[11] Kamal, EM, Haron, SH, Md Ulang, N and Baharum,
F, “The Critical Review on the Malaysian
Construction Industry”, Journal of Economics and
Sustainable Development, Vol.3:13, 2012, pp. 81-87.
[12] Ibrahim, AR, Roy, MH, Ahmed, Z and Imtiaz, G,
“An Investigation of the Status of the Malaysian
Construction Industry”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 17:2, 2010, pp. 294-308.
[13] Hamid, ZA and Kamar, KAM, “Modernising the
Malaysian Construction Industry”, W089-Special
Track 18th CIB World Building Congress. pp.267-
280.
[14] Sufian, A & Rahman, RA, “Quality housing:
Regulatory and administrative framework in
Malaysia”, International Journal of Economic and
Management. Vol. 2:1, 2008, pp. 141-156.
[15] Office of Government Commerce (OGC), “Design
quality: Achieving excellence in construction
procurement guide”, 2007, UK.Commerce
[16] Gann, DM, Salter, AJ & Whyte, JK, “Design Quality
Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research &
Information, Vol. 31:5, 2003, pp. 318–333.
[17] Construction Industry Council (CIC), Design Quality
Indicator Online, www.dqi.org.uk, accessed on 6th
370
December 2010.
[18] Abd Majid, MZ & McCaffer, R, “Assessment of
work performance of maintenance contractors in
Saudi Arabia”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, 1997, pp. 91-91.
[19] Fellows, R & Liu, A, “Research methods for
construction”, Blackwell Science, 1997.
[20] Low, SP & Willie, CKT, "The influence of workload
instability on quality in the construction industry",
International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 13:3, 1996, pp.42 – 56.
[21] Abdul-Rahman, H, Kwan, CL & Woods, PC,
“Quality function deployment in construction design:
application in low-cost housing design”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 1999,
pp. 591-605.
[22] Whyte, JK & Gann, DM, “Design Quality Indicators:
work in progress”, Building Research & Information”,
Vol. 31:5, 2003, pp. 387–398.
[23] Thomson, DS, Austin, SA, Devine-Wright, H, &
Mills, GR, “Managing value and quality in design.
Building Research & Information”, Vol. 31: 5, 2003,
pp.334–345.
[24] Eley, J, “Design quality in buildings”, Building
Research & Information, Vol. 32:3, 2004, pp. 255–
260.
[25] Volker, L, Lauche, K, Heintz, JL, & De Jonge, H,
“Deciding about design quality: design perception
during a European tendering procedure”, Design
Studies, Vol. 29, 2008, pp. 387-409.
[26] Yongqiang, S, & Qiangli, L, “Evaluation method of
building engineering design quality”, 2nd IEEE Int.
Conf. on Information Management and Engineering,
2010, pp. 634–637.
[27] Abu Samah, Z, Ibrahim, N, Othman, S & Abd Wahab,
MH, “Assessing quality design of interiors: a case
study of a hospital outpatient unit in Malaysia”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 35,
2012, pp. 245–252.
[28] Stringer, A, Dunne, J, & Boussabaine, H, “Schools
design quality : a user perspective”, Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 8:4, pp.
257–272.
[29] Abu Samah, Z, Ibrahim, N, & Amir, JS, “Translating
quality care factors to quality space: design criteria
for outpatient facility”, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 105, 2013, pp. 265–272.
[30] Cook, JA, Bose, M, Marshall, WE, & Main, DS
(2009). How Does Design Quality Add to our
Understanding of Walkable Communities ?”,
Landscape Journal, Vol. 32:2, 2013, pp. 151-162.
[31] Amer Hatem, W, “Comparing Design Quality for
School Buildings in Iraq (Directorate General of
Education in Diyala Case Study)”, http://fte.edu.iq
/upload/upfile/ar/12165.pdf., accessed on Jan. 2014.
[32] John, R, Smith, A, Chotipanich, S and Pitt, M,
“Awareness and effectiveness of quality function
deployment (QFD) in design and build projects in
Nigeria”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol.
12:1, Jan. 2014, pp.72 – 88.